RE: Differences between *Vancleavea* and thalattosaurs

[Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com>]

----------------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 07:27:21 -0600
> From: davidpeters@att.net
> To: qi_leong@hotmail.com
> CC: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Differences between *Vancleavea* and thalattosaurs

> We could wait for a year or more to see my work published, but why? The news 
> is now. And thalattosaurs are just a small part of the story I want to tell.
 
 There is always a "now".  Shall we throw out the practice of publication 
altogether?
 
 
> Okay. Evolution marches on.
>
> In thalattosaurs the trend seems to be from short snout to long snout, long 
> teeth to short teeth, armor to naked, feet to fins, etc. We'll have to see 
> how it all falls out when all the details come out.
>
> In the meantime, if Vancleavea is indeed an archosauriform, don't you wonder 
> where the antorbital fenestra and the temporal fenestrae disappeared to 
> (without a trace)? Where's the mandibular fenestra? Why is the orbit in the 
> front half of the skull?
 
 what happened to your "evolution marches on"?
 
> Then remember, "the apple doesn't usually fall far from the tree" which is 
> another way of saying evolution works in small incremental steps. 
 
small steps have this tendancy to add up.
 
 
                                          
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail gives you a free,exclusive  gift.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/hotmail_bl1/hotmail_bl1.aspx?ocid=PID23879::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-ww:WM_IMHM_7:092009